ILO-en-strap
NORMLEX
Information System on International Labour Standards

Rapport intérimaire - Rapport No. 246, Novembre 1986

Cas no 1346 (Inde) - Date de la plainte: 29-AOÛT -85 - Clos

Afficher en : Francais - Espagnol

  1. 409. The Committee examined this case at its February 1986 meeting when it reached interim conclusions, approved by the Governing Body at its 232nd Session (February-March 1986) (see 243rd Report, paragraphs 588 to 600). The Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives' Associations of India (FMRAI) presented additional information in a letter dated 31 March 1986. The Government sent communications dated 9 May and 4 November 1986, in connection with this case.
  2. 410. India has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No.87) or the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No.98).

A. Previous examination of the case

A. Previous examination of the case
  1. 411. At its meeting in February 1986, the Committee examined allegations of
  2. anti-union discrimination (33 dimissals; creation by management of a rival
  3. union; coercion by management to join the rival union; physical attacks on
  4. leaders of the complainant union) against the complainant and its members at
  5. the Raptakos, Brett and Co. Ltd. undertaking since 1983. It also considered
  6. the Government's reply.
  7. 412. The Governing Body, on the Committee's recommendation, approved the
  8. interim report on this case and, in particular, the following conclusions:
  9. a) The Committee notes that the allegations of anti-union discrimination in
  10. the Raptakos, Brett and Co. Ltd. undertaking are before the Bombay Labour
  11. Court; it requests the Government to send it a copy of the Court's decision as
  12. soon as it is handed down.
  13. b) The Committee notes with concern that 33 workers remain dismissed by the
  14. company apparently since late 1983 allegedly because of their trade union
  15. membership; it recalls the principle that workers should enjoy adequate
  16. protection against anti-union discrimination in their employment.
  17. c) As regards the signature of an agreement between the employer and a newly
  18. formed rival union, the Committee expresses the hope that the Labour Court's
  19. decision will clarify both the status of the new union and the agreement it
  20. signed.
  21. d) The Committee requests the Government and the complainant to supply more
  22. detailed information concerning the allegation of physical attacks against the
  23. officers of the complainant union.
  24. B. Further developments
  25. 413. In a letter dated 31 March 1986, the complainant union challenged the
  26. Government's statement that the disputes in question had been referred to the
  27. Bombay Labour Court for adjudication. According to the union, the only matter
  28. before the Labour Court concerned a request for reinstatement with full back
  29. wages and continuity of service of 90 workers; it supplied a typed copy of an
  30. order (dated 4 November 1985 and signed in the name of the Governor of
  31. Maharashtra) referring an industrial dispute in the Raptakos Brett undertaking
  32. to the Labour Court for adjudication. The FMRAI pointed out that the list of
  33. 90 medical representatives involved in this referral did not include six of
  34. the 33 medical representatives whose names appeared in the annex to the
  35. Committee's earlier examination of the case.
  36. 414. In reply to the Committee's request for further detailed information on
  37. the alleged physical attacks against the officers of the complainant union,
  38. the FMRAI stated that, during the evening of 8 July 1984, three union members
  39. who had been peacefully picketting the company's premises in Calcutta were
  40. attacked by gangsters employed by the management of Raptakos Brett Co. Ltd.
  41. According to the FMRAI, one unionist (Mr. Arun Roy Choudhury) was kidnapped at
  42. gunpoint, stabbed, beaten and left unconscious on the roadside; he was
  43. hospitalised and a case was filed with the police against his assailants.
  44. 415. Also on 8 July 1984, stated the complainant, union members assembled in
  45. front of the Hotel Patliputra Ashok in Patna, State of Bihar, to submit a
  46. memorandum to two company officials Messrs. Jotirmoy, Roy and Shetty; the
  47. latter allegedly emerged from the hotel with a group of hired criminals
  48. brandishing revolvers and other weapons and attacked the unionists. The
  49. complainant states that local people chased away the criminals and the two
  50. executives.
  51. 416. The FMRAI further alleged that the Raptakos Brett company hired fully
  52. armed criminals to assault its members who were on a hunger strike in front of
  53. the company's office at Ranchi, State of Bihar, between 30 April and 5 May
  54. 1984; the union's unit secretary, Mr. Ratan Chakraborty, was severely
  55. assaulted.
  56. 417. Lastly, the complainant alleged that although the police remained
  57. inactive during the above-mentioned attacks, they had interfered to serve the
  58. interests of the company in the State of Bihar. For example, in Patna, the
  59. police had filed a case (No. 1071 (M)84) against some members of the
  60. complainant union alleging that the union was affiliated to the Communist
  61. Party of India and should therefore be prevented from exercising trade union
  62. functions. The FMRAI maintains, however, that it is not affiliated to any
  63. political party, or even to any central trade union body. In this connection,
  64. the complainant pointed out that the rival union set up by the management in
  65. the company had been provisionally affiliated to the Indian Trade Union
  66. Congress in the States of Maharashtra and Bihar and at the central level.
  67. 418. The Government, in its letter of 9 May 1986, states that the State
  68. Government of Maharashtra has confirmed that it has sent - in two referrals -
  69. all the cases of the 33 dismissed medical representatives to the Bombay Labour
  70. Court for adjudication and that there has been no omission in this regard. The
  71. matter remains sub judice. Further comments are awaited from the State
  72. Government concerning the complainant's most recent communication. In its
  73. latest communication dated 4 November l986 the Government states that the
  74. Bombay Labour Court has still not given its award. It adds that it will
  75. actively pursue the question of physical attacks on FMRAI union members with
  76. the state governments concerned and forward information promptly.

C. The Committee's conclusions

C. The Committee's conclusions
  1. 419. The Committee notes that, following its February 1986 examination of
    • this case two major questions remained pending: first, the outcome of the
    • appeals presented by 33 dismissed medical representatives to the Bombay Labour
    • Court; secondly, a request for further details on the alleged physical attacks
    • against officers and members of the complainant union.
  2. 420. As regards proceedings in the Bombay Labour Court, the Committee notes
    • the Government's assurance that all the cases mentioned by the complainant are
    • sub judice before that tribunal. It would again draw the Government's
    • attention to the principle that workers should enjoy adequate protection
    • against anti-union discrimination in their employment and requests the
    • Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the appeals and to send it a
    • copy of the Court's decision as soon as it is handed down.
  3. 421. As regards the alleged physical attacks against officers and members of
    • the complainant union, the Committee notes the details provided by the FMRAI
    • concerning incidents in May and July 1984 in the towns of Ranchi and Patna (in
    • the State of Bihar) and Calcutta (in the State of West Bengal). It notes that,
    • although this information was transmitted to the Government immediately upon
    • its receipt by the Office, no specific reply has been provided by the
    • Government, although the Government has announced that further comments from
    • the state governments are still awaited. The Committee accordingly adjourns
    • this aspect of the case once again, and urges the Government to send its
    • observations on this aspect of the case in time for the Committee's next
    • meeting.

The Committee's recommendations

The Committee's recommendations
  1. 422. In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to
    • approve this interim report and, in particular the following conclusions:
      • a) The Committee notes the Government's assurance that the cases of all 33
    • medical representatives who were dismissed from the Raptakos, Brett and Co.
    • Ltd. undertaking allegedly because of their trade union activities are still
    • being heard before the Bombay Labour Court; it requests the Government to
    • inform it of the outcome of these cases and to send it a copy of the Court's
    • decision as soon as it is handed down.
      • b) The Committee notes that the Government has not yet provided a specific
    • reply to the complainant's most recent communication giving details of alleged
    • management-backed physical violence against its officers and members; it urges
    • the Government to send its observations on this aspect of the case in time for
    • the Committee's next meeting.
© Copyright and permissions 1996-2024 International Labour Organization (ILO) | Privacy policy | Disclaimer